As Australia looks to the possibility of Kevin Rudd retaking the prime ministership, it is worth considering the kinds of changes I believe we may see under a new Rudd administration.

Kevin Rudd’s time in the foreign ministry has allowed him to highlight some genuine differences between himself and the Prime Minister.

It is interesting to note that Kevin Rudd is from the right of the ALP while Julia Gillard is from the left. In the strange twists and turns which are politics, Rudd’s rhetoric was often far more left-leaning than Gillard.

Since taking the leadership Gillard has set many of her Labor left colleagues off side due to her commitment to offshore processing, her rejection of gay marriage, her stance on allowing Uranium sales to India and promotion of free-trade with China.

Gillard’s faction has tried to argue that Kevin Rudd was not a team player or consensus party leader; this is compared to the opposite end of the spectrum. Gillard is a Labor Left leader who has compromised on so many issues that the Australian public have often felt unsure as to her real views and her failure to articulate a firm position has meant that much of the legislation passed has been watered down or completely abandoned.

One need only look at Gillard’s refusal to take Andrew Wilkie’s poker reform plan to the lower house. Wayne Swan has attacked Rudd as a man of ‘great weakness’ but the pokies reform issue shows that Gillard is an inept leader whose puppet-master is the faceless men of the NSW Labor Right.

Under a Rudd government there are many issues which may see major changes and even reversals in policy position.

Uranium sales to India would likely be overturned; Rudd was not consulted in Gillard’s plans to change the current policy despite the fact he would have had to negotiate such talks with India. Rudd also stated ‘I take my non-proliferation responsibilities deadly seriously.’ And went on to state that such a change would require fundamental commitments from the Indian government in a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement with Australia. Rudd then argued that India had no ‘crushing need’ for Australian uranium. (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/india-uranium-sales-no-fait-accompli-rudd-20111127-1o0zj.html)

Another issue that may see changes under a Rudd administration is the government’s approach to Julian Assange. The Wikileaks founder was condemned by Julia Gillard who removed any presumption of innocence when she attacked Assange and referred to the wikileaks as illegal and the release of information as grossly irresponsible.

Rudd took a very different position on the issue when he stated ‘Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that.’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558)

In this situation Gillard showed that she was more willing to toe the US line rather than trying to protect one of Australia’s own citizens. This is not the only time Gillard has shown that she is unwilling for Australia to stray from the US line.

The last issue worth mentioning is the fact that Rudd dumped plans for a China free-trade agreement which was very unpopular with many unions, the Greens and the Labor left. Julia Gillard has since revived this issue and there is a likelihood the issue would be dumped once again under Rudd’s leadership.

There is a great deal of discussion around Rudd’s ability to maintain a minority government in the event of Gillard losing the leadership. Even if Tony Windsor and Rob Oakenshott were to pull their support for Labor under Kevin Rudd, Rudd has the buffer of likely support from regaining independent Andrew Wilkie and also bringing his old friend Bob Katter into the government. Bob Katter had stated at the last election that he would have been willing to work with a Rudd led Labor party, but not under the leadership of Gillard.

The leadership ballot will prove interesting but the simple fact remains that despite the Gillard camps attempts to portray Rudd as a non-consensus leader, Gillard is essentially a puppet for the NSW Labor right.

Many years ago in an article for The Monthly, Rudd argued blamed neo-liberalism for the Global Financial Crisis and went on to state ‘the neo-liberal experiment is dead.’ Arguing the need to replace neo-liberalism with ‘a global financial system that properly balances private incentive with public responsibility’. In 2009 Kevin Rudd once again stated the failures of neo-liberalism and suggested a return to Keynesian economic policies with a promise to deliver a new social democratic state with more government intervention in the economy. This has not happened yet but it was clear that Rudd was much more focused on big governments and government intervention; this was made clear by his call for the states to lift their game on health services or face takeover by the federal government.

The other issue is that there are core ideological differences between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and only time will tell how such an ideological shift will play out; what can be said is that we are living in a historic moment and it is the Australian Labor Party which will have to make a decision on the direction of our nation.

The polls have consistently shown that Rudd who was deposed in a backroom coup by the ALP is preferred leader over Julia Gillard; a return of Rudd is the only way the Labor Party can offer a core ideological shift from the opposition and promote a uniquely Australian approach to foreign affairs and economics.

In comparison to Gillard, it is my belief that Rudd is a leader who is strong and decisive, who holds firm to his convictions and is willing to call the tough shots and encourage Australia to be a player on the international stage.

Matthew Holloway is a freelance writer and social justice advocate from Tasmania, where he stood for state and federal parliament and co-founded Tasmanians for Transparency. He has previously written for Eureka Street and Online Opinion. Matthew currently lives in Melbourne where he works as a Counsellor in Aboriginal Health and is a Social Worker in Catholic social services.

• Use the TT News dropdown (top Nav Bar) for the range of breaking news… and the latest polls, which today have Labor up and Julia down. Click on NEWS to get the World Google wrap. Breaking News in the Dropdown gives you the wrap of your local area ...

• Tess Lawrence, Independent Australia: How would the people vote today: Gillard or Rudd?

Even if Julia Gillard wins the majority vote of the histrionic and contaminated Labor Caucus this morning, wannabe PM Kevin Rudd will win the spill in the long run, since he holds the majority vote of the ignored and disaffected 99% per centers in this case – the Australian people. Contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence, in this succinct and possibly the world’s shortest Op Ed article encapsulates her steadfast view in a single Oneliner.

Uranium sales to India seem only to have surfaced after President Obama’s visit to Australia.
His motives were clear: to have a counterpoise to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The U.S views Pakistan as a failed state and consequently a dangerous one.

Posted by Mike Adams on 26/02/12 at 07:37 PM

#1 - “The U.S views Pakistan as a failed state and consequently a dangerous one.”

Could we perhaps consider that Liberal voters are jumping on the media polls to say they prefer Rudd. What an opportunity to make waves for the Labor party.

Posted by Carol Rea on 26/02/12 at 09:54 PM

If Kevin Rudd Wins ... he won’t end of string.

Posted by bazzabee on 27/02/12 at 07:54 AM

Kevin Rudd even if he ends up on the back bench will still exercise control of Labor under the de facto PM Julia Gillard.
There is no getting away from it Labor will remain in damage control while Julia remains as PM being unlikely to win back public confidence leading up to the next Federal election.

Posted by Robin Halton on 27/02/12 at 09:45 AM

Kev did his dough and I his last remaining shreds of credibility today so let’s hope he now goes quietly into the night resisting all temptation to rage against the going down of the sun.

#1 I am currently reading Bob Woodwards Obama’s Wars it is frightening at many levels not least to read just how close Pakistan is to becoming a failed state. I share your concerns Mr. Adams.

Posted by bazabee on 27/02/12 at 12:39 PM

Let’s hope that the sentiments in Comments 2 & 3 never become accepted wisdom^:

~ the US is very obviously, even in the most stretched interpretation of this term, NOT a “failed state” (despite however serious its particular failures may be), and

~ India is equally clearly not a “lunatic” state (despite however socio-culturally weird its particular failures may seem to be).

^ outside the simpletons in much of academia & the commentariat, that is.

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 27/02/12 at 01:30 PM

Dear MARK ADAMS, the subject of uranium sales to India was on the Labor Party’s dance card long before President Obama’s visit.

Although, of course, his visit has compounded this lunacy.

Posted by TESS LAWRENCE on 27/02/12 at 06:03 PM

#9 May I ask what evidence you have for your statement Ms Lawrence would you care to share it with us?

The subject of uranium sales to India is I agree not new problem for Australia and the government and yes it is likely that some senior members of the ALP would most likely have supported sales to India. But to make an assertion that it was as you say on “the Labor Party’s dance card” is at best without a shred of evidence mischievous at worst it is a malevolent falsehood a calumny against many decent rank and file ALP members who would oppose such sales.

Question under the TT guidelines how can correspondents make assertions such as the one Ms Lawrence made without offering any evidence in support of what may be as in this case a divisive and deeply contentious allegation?

Posted by bazzabee on 28/02/12 at 02:14 PM

Re #8
“~ the US is very obviously, even in the most stretched interpretation of this term, NOT a “failed state” (despite however serious its particular failures may be), and

~ India is equally clearly not a “lunatic” state (despite however socio-culturally weird its particular failures may seem to be).”

That’s not what he or I said. But the rest is well known. To think that uranium in either countries’ hands, let alone any country, is a desirable or acceptable thing is delusional.

Think Fukushima even if you don’t consider the problems associated with nuclear weaponry.

There is a matter far worse than uranium that should be in all our sights, with the prospect of a dead Earth from carbon poisoning.

On the one hand there is the spectre of a runaway greenhouse effect, which James Hansen dubs the Venus syndrome (p.223 ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’), while on the other hand ocean acidification could lead to algal blooms in dying seas releasing toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that can kill life on land and destroy the ozone layer.

Added to all other crisis, including our increasingly unsustainable presence on this planet, the accelerating loss of species and energy shortages to meet the demands of growing populations, many now describe the maelstrom gathering around us as a perfect storm of catastrophes, all of our own making,

If we keep staggering around in circles bumping into one crisis after another, what game are we playing? We need to get ahead of the game in this race for survival.

It is chilling to know that the carbon crisis could have been entirely avoided, if we had started building solar power stations in space in the 1980s. We had the technology to do this. Sadly, we focused on the Earth alone and all the fossil fuel that we could pump and dig and cracked from the planet.

To undo this attempt at mass suicide by carbon poisoning, Australia could take a lead, if the Australian people woke up to the prospect and demanded that our resource bonanza be used to build solar power stations in space. With direct access to the unlimited energy-well of our star, we would have the energy to extract carbon from carbon dioxide as a resource and be in a position to win back a safe Earth, where nuclear power would not be needed.

Our survival now hinges on energy and how we use it to undo the damage of the industrial era. If we stubbornly cling to the Earth, seeking solutions to all problems on Earth alone, our survival will be increasingly at risk.

Selling uranium to India may be a wise bet, if this opens the way to greater collaboration with India and other nations to build solar power stations in space, as part of a strategic vision for human survival.

Lacking a strategic vision, we simply stagger around in circles, pumping into crisis after crisis, until we all fall down and potentially, take all life on Earth with us.

Kim Peart

Posted by Kim Peart on 29/02/12 at 02:33 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.